not much performance gained?.... for example the R9 280X and the GTX 770 are about equal when it comes to performance, however the 280X is a full 100 dollars cheaper. Also the R9 290X is supposed to be faster than a Titan and 300-400 dollars cheaper... I dont see the logic here.
I prefer AMD but that does not mean that if the situation were reversed that I would get a 280X over a 770, no I will go wherever my wallet is less affected.
Keep on thinking that. Love the sweeping generalization you've got going there.
Yeah for most of the new series it is like that, in fact Both AMD and Nvidia are doing that this year... GXT 770 and under are all rebrands of GTX 6XX cards. SO R9 280X and under are rebrands of HD 7XXX cards.
@MidnytRain
No that is not true, it really depends on the game as some perform better on one or the other.
It doesn't need to prove anything... It is not a secret that the R9 280X is based of the tahiti core just like the 7950 and 7970. It is essentially a 7970GHZ with a few improvements. The R7 260X and the R9 290/X are the cards based off new gpu cores (Bonaire and Hawaii respectively.)
Yeah, a pc with this card inside is going to cost at least 2 grand, whereas you could build one for almost half that much.
Battlefield 3 is a very very beautiful game. I would place it on par with Crysis 3 and just above metro last light.
KZ:SF will probably come close though- damn impressive for a console title.
I guess people forgot about Bioshock infinite already... smh.
As I havent played GTA5 (hasnt landed on pc yet) It is between Bioshock and TLOU for me.
nope... if a 5.6 Teraflop gpu (R9 290X) and a 4.9 Teraflop gpu (GTX Titan) are whats needed then do you really think a 1.3 Teraflop gpu(Xbox One)can pull it off? lol the main menu, maybe.
OOH benchmarks I like those.
How about these:
FX 8350: http://www.cpubenchmark.net...
i5 2500K: http://www.cpubenchmark.net...
Yeah but each module has to full cores, they are only called modules because some of the resources are shared between the two cores.
It will work beautifully. I use mine to use my dualshock with my xbox.
Triggers on a console are nothing like actual triggers on weapons. that is a poor comparison. not saying your preference is wrong by any means.
In a vacuum a feather and bowling ball fall at the same speed. so your logic is flawed. What would give it less bullet drop is the massive payload powering it. to put simply compared to say 5.56 round or 7.62 round the bullets technically fall at the same speed, however it takes less time for a m82 (.50c) round to reach its target so the perceived bullet drop is less.
ah that would be why I dont see any of the issues that others are complaining about. my system has win 8 pro. runs like a dream.
it is an AMD optimized game, and early reports indicate that the game does indeed run better on AMD.
just might want to get your eyes checked. the pc version is sharper, has better colors, more effects, better textures, runs smoother, higher fps, and is at a higher resolution.
While I would not say that it as heavy as say Killzone, it is not like sliding on ice and the weapons do have weight to them as well. However it does feel a little more fast paced than bf3
I am in the beta so I have first hand experience.
Just like COD? nope. play it and you will see.
Nvidia has better performance? says who, in fact they are more or less equal with the edge going to amd in more often than not. Hell nearly the ENTIRE HD 7000 series out performed the GTX 600 series. (Granted it was marginal most of the time)
When I bought my gpu (HD 7950) it was down to a GTX 670 or a the 7950 however with a slight performance disadvantage and a significant price difference it was a no brainer.